Citation Numbers: 175 A.D.2d 617, 572 N.Y.S.2d 553, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10141
Filed Date: 7/12/1991
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/31/2024
— Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner applied to respondent Zoning Board of Appeals (Board) for a use variance that would eliminate from the zoning ordinance the "owner-occupied” status as it applied to the subject property. Petitioner was entitled to a use variance because it had demonstrated unnecessary hardship in that the property would not yield a reasonable rate of return unless the restriction were eliminated, the restriction had placed the owner in a unique plight, and elimination of the restriction would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood (see, Matter of Village Bd. v Jarrold, 53 NY2d 254, 257; Matter of Otto v Steinhilber, 282 NY 71, 76; see also, Bellanca v Gates, 97 AD2d 971, affd 61 NY2d 878). In those circumstances, we